Kerala High Court
Jayasree. R vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
1
2025:KER:19068
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
OP(KAT) NO. 20 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2023 IN OA NO.991 OF 2021
OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN O.A.:
JAYASREE. R,
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. K.C. AJITH PRASAD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
AGRICULTURE, KOTTARAKARA,KOLLAM - 691 578 RESIDING
AT MIDHILA, VAYALA. P.O.,ANCHAL, KOLLAM, KERALA,
PIN - 691306
BY ADVS.
ELIZEBATH GEORGE
M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
RAJU G.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS WELFARE
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 691001
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
2
2025:KER:19068
2 DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS
WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KOLLAM VADDY CIVIL STATION ROAD, VIDYA NAGAR,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691013
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 28.02.2025, ALONG WITH OP(KAT)NOS.365/2024,
389/2024, THE COURT ON 07.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
3
2025:KER:19068
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
OP(KAT) NO. 365 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2023 IN OA NO.989 OF 2021
OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN O.A.:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED
BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
FARMERS WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND-FARMERS
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033
3 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KOLLAM
VADDY CIVIL STATION ROAD,VIDYA NAGAR,KOLLAM,
KERALA, PIN - 691013
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
4
2025:KER:19068
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A.:
JAYASREE.R,AGED 52 YEARS,
W/O. K.C.AJITH PRASAD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
AGRICULTURE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, RESIDENT OF
MIDHILA, VAYALA.P.O, ANCHAL, KOLLAM,KERALA,
PIN - 691306
BY ADVS.
M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
ELIZEBATH GEORGE
SATHY C.B.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 28.02.2025, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).20/2024 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 07.03.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
5
2025:KER:19068
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
OP(KAT) NO. 389 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2023 IN OA NO.991 OF 2021
OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND FARMERS WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
FARMERS WELFARE DEPARTMENT
DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KOLLAM, VADDY CIVIL STATION ROAD, VIDYA NAGAR,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691013
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
6
2025:KER:19068
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A.:
JAYASREE. R, W/O K.C. AJITH PRASAD,
AGED 49 YEARS
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM, RESIDENT OF MIDHILA, VAYALA P.O, ANCHAL,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691306
BY ADVS.
M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
ELIZEBATH GEORGE(K/954/2018)
SATHY C.B.(K/000012/2020)
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 28.02.2025, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).20/2024 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 07.03.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
7
2025:KER:19068
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
As these cases are connected and arise from a
common order passed by the Tribunal, they are
disposed of together. For the sake of convenience,
the parties would be hereinafter referred to as in
the manner they are arrayed in O.P.(KAT)No.365/2024.
2. A disciplinary proceeding and consequential
actions were initiated against the respondent herein
alleging dereliction of duty in connection with the
implementation of the Water Shed Project at
Anappuzhaykkal. They challenged the same before the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal by filing two
separate applications. After the enquiry, the
enquiry officer found that one Sarath Chandran, the
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
8
2025:KER:19068
Project facilitator, had misappropriated the
Government funds by forging certain documents. The
enquiry officer recommended to take steps against
Sarath Chandran for recovery of the loss and also
for instituting a criminal case against him. It was
also found that there were supervisory laches on the
part of the respondent and two other persons who
were the Agricultural Officers at Anchal during the
relevant period. Accepting the enquiry report, the
Government initially imposed a punishment of barring
one increment without cumulative effect on the
respondent herein and the other two Agricultural
Officers. The Government further decided to recover
Rs.58,54,176/- from the said Sarath Chandran and a
bank officer, who helped him to obtain certain
fabricated bank records. It was further decided by
the Government that if the amount is not recovered
from the said persons, it can be recovered from the
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
9
2025:KER:19068
respondent and two other Agricultural Officers.
3. The respondent preferred a review petition
before the Government and then it was decided to
recall the punishment of barring the increment and
instead it decided to warn the respondent of her
lapses. However, the decision to recover the amount
in the abovementioned manner was retained. Earlier,
based on the decision of the Government, the
Director of Agriculture Development and Farmers
Welfare Department suspended the respondent alleging
that it was because of her lapses the abovesaid
incident occurred. Later, after the conclusion of
the disciplinary enquiry, the Government decided to
regularise the suspension period of 13 months and
further fixed her pay and allowances during the
suspension period as the subsistence allowance she
received. Challenging these orders, the respondent
approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
10
2025:KER:19068
4. By a common order, the Tribunal found that
when the Government itself entered into a conclusion
that the suspension was not justified, the action
limiting the pay and allowance during the suspension
period to the subsistence allowance already received
is unjustifiable and hence it set aside the said
order and declared that the respondent is entitled
for full pay and allowance. However, the Tribunal
did not interfere with the decision to recover the
loss suffered by the Government from the respondent,
when recovery of the same from the said Sarath
Chandran and the bank officer failed. Challenging
the said order, the State preferred two separate
petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India before this court. The respondent also filed a
petition challenging the finding of the Tribunal to
the extent it upheld the decision of the Government.
5. We heard the learned Government Pleader and
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
11
2025:KER:19068
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
6. The learned Government Pleader vehemently
contended that the Tribunal went wrong in holding
that the Government arrived at a conclusion that the
suspension order against the respondent was
unjustifiable. He pointed out that the Government
observed only that the respondent alone was
suspended, though two other persons were also
responsible, and to that extent it is unjustifiable.
7. When we perused Annexure A10 order passed by
the Government, we found force in the submissions
made by the learned Government Pleader. The
conclusion of the Government is not as observed by
the Tribunal. The Government had appreciated one
aspect in favour of the respondent while
entertaining the review petition i.e. among the
three Agricultural Officers who had been in charge
during the relevant period, the respondent alone was
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
12
2025:KER:19068
suspended. In view of that disparity, the Government
decided to recall the initial punishment imposed on
the respondent. The decision taken by the Government
to fix the pay and allowance was through a separate
order. The matters for consideration for the said
order were entirely different.
8. The reason assigned by the Government for
recalling or reducing the punishment imposed on the
respondent cannot be imported to an entirely
different situation. In Annexure A10, the Government
was exercising an altogether different function as
prescribed in Rule 56B of the Kerala Service Rules.
The duty cast upon the Government while fixing the
pay and allowance to be paid to an officer during
his or her suspension period is to consider whether
the suspension was ‘wholly unjustified'[Rule
56B(3)]. Obviously, the Government did not find that
the suspension was wholly unjustified. What the
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
13
2025:KER:19068
Government found in the review order was only that
among the three officials who were found guilty of
misconduct, it is not fair to impose a substantive
punishment of barring increment on one among them
alone, who was earlier suspended as well. Thus, we
are not in a position to uphold the findings of the
Tribunal that the respondent is entitled to full pay
and allowance during her suspension period.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent also assailed the impugned order on
separate counts. According to her, there is no
justification for upholding the order passed by the
Government by which it decided to recover the amount
of Rs.58,54,176/- from the respondent if the
Government is not able to recover the same from the
above-said persons. According to her, there was not
even an allegation of misappropriation of funds by
the respondent and the finding of the enquiry
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
14
2025:KER:19068
officer was that the foul play was the result of a
criminal offence based on forged documents. The
learned counsel further submitted that there was no
enquiry as to the alleged supervisory lapses on the
part of the respondent and there was no mention of
such supervisory lapses in the charge memo issued to
the respondent. Even the enquiry report does not
show that there was any supervisory lapse on the
part of the respondent, it is argued.
10. We are unable to accept the said contentions
made by the learned counsel for the respondent. The
charge memo clearly spells out necessary elements
constituting dereliction of duty on the part of the
respondent. There is also a specific recommendation
in the enquiry report that the loss suffered by the
Government has to be recovered from the delinquents.
11. However, we cannot uphold the decision of the
Government to recover the amount from the respondent
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
15
2025:KER:19068
and two other officers for an entirely different
reason. When we perused the enquiry report, which is
produced as Annexure A6 in O.P.(KAT)No.20/2024, we
found that it is a cryptic order without assigning
any reasons and without referring to any evidence.
Strangely, the entire enquiry report is concluded in
one paragraph. There is nothing on record to see
that the enquiry was contemplated in the manner
provided in the Kerala Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Based on
this finding, the Government had decided to recover
Rs.58,54,176/- from the respondent, if it is not
recoverable from the actual culprits. The learned
counsel for the respondent has raised specific
challenges against the laconic nature of the enquiry
report in the petition filed before this Court as
well as the Tribunal. It is also contended that the
amount to be recovered is mentioned differently in
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
16
2025:KER:19068
different orders passed by the Government or the
department. Considering all these aspects, we are of
the view that the enquiry report as well as the
consequential orders passed by the Government to the
extent it directs recovery from the respondent and
other former officials are to be set aside while
reserving the right of the Government to initiate a
fresh and proper proceeding against the respondent
and others, in that regard. As Annexure A10 is an
independent order, the above finding will not affect
it.
12. In the result :
i) O.P.(KAT)Nos.365/2024 is allowed. The
impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and
thereby Annexure A10 order in O.P.(KAT)No.365/2024
is restored.
(ii)O.P.(KAT)No.20/2024 is allowed. The enquiry
report as well as the consequential orders passed by
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/202417
2025:KER:19068the Government to the extent it directs recovery
from the respondent and other former officials are
set aside. The right of the Government to initiate
fresh proceedings against the respondent and others
in this regard is reserved. O.P.(KAT)No.389/2024 is
thus dismissed reserving the right of the Government
to initiate fresh proceeding as mentioned above. It
is made clear that the decision taken by the
Government to proceed against Sarath Chandran and
the bank officer remains unaffected by this order.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
18
2025:KER:19068
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 365/2024
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SVC(5)
43700/2016 DATED 08.02.2017 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SD(3)
10808/2018 DATED 13.03.2018 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)NO. 200/2018/AGRI
DATED 08.03.2018 OF GOVT. OF KERALA
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION BEARING NO.
SVC(5) 43700/2016 DATED 04.01.2018
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
DATED 20.01.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED NIL
PREPARED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF
AGRICULTURE.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.
AGRI-EA 3/1086887/2016-AGRI DATED
20.03.2019 OF THE 1STRESPONDENT.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 626/2019/AGRI
DATED 06.07.2019 OF GOVT OF KERALA [
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)NO. 82/2020/AGRI DATED
22.01.2020
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
19
2025:KER:19068
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 351/2021/AGRI
DATED 12.04.2021 OF GOVT. OF KERALA.
Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT NO.
SVC(5)43700/16 DATED 14.12.2016 OF THE
SPECIAL VIGILANCE CELL, DIRECTORATE OF
AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure R1(b) TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND
FARMERS WELFARE DEPARTMENT DATED
09.11.2018
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF O.A NO.989/2021
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE 1STRESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY
THE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO.989/2021 DATED
24.08.2023
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
20
2025:KER:19068
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 389/2024
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
SVC(5)43700/2016 DATED 08/02/2017 OF THE
SECOND RESPONDENT
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
SD(3)10808/2018 DATED 13/03/2018 OF THE
SECOND RESPONDENT
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 200/2018/AGRI
DATED 08/03/2018 OF GOVT. OF KERALA
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION BEARING NO.
SVC(5) 43700/2016 DATED 04/01/2018
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE
SECOND RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED
20/01/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED NIL
PREPARED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF
AGRICULTURE
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.
AGRI-EA 3/1086887/2016-AGRI DATED
20/03/2019 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 626/2019/AGRI
DATED 06/07/2019 OF GOVT. OF KERALA
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 82/2020/AGRI
DATED 22/01/2020.
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
21
2025:KER:19068
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.VC04/2017/KLM
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
SVC(5)/43700/16 DATED 08/02/2021 OF THE
SECOND RESPONDENT
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)NO 351/2021/AGRI DATED
12/04/2021 OF GOVT.OF KERALA
Annexure R2(a) TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT NO.
SVC(5)43700/16 DATED 14/12/2016 OF THE
SPECIAL VIGILANCE CELL, DIRECTORATE OF
AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure R2(b) TRUE COPY OF REPORT AS PER RULE 15 OF KCS
(CC & A) RULES 1960
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF OA NO. 991/2021 ALONG WITH
ANNEXURE A1 TO ANNEXURE A12
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE SECOND RESPONDENT ON 01/11/2021 ALONG
WITH ANNEXURES
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT ON
12/09/2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY
THE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO.991/2021 DATED
24/08/2023
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
22
2025:KER:19068
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 20/2024
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SVC(5)
43700/2016 DATED 08/02/2017 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SD(3)
10808/2018 DATED 13/03/2018 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF GO (RT) NO. 200/2018/AGRI
DATED 08/03/2018 OF GOVT. OF KERALA
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION BEARING
NO.SVC(5)43700/2016 DATED 04/01/2018 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
DATED 20/01/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED NIL
PREPARED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF
AGRICULTURE
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.
AGRI-EA 3/1086887/2016-AGRI DATED
20/03/2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 626/2019/AGRI
DATED 06/07/2019 OF GOVT. OF KERALA
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF GO (RT) NO. 82/2020/AGRI
DATED 22/01/2020
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. VC-04/2017/KLM
O.P.(KAT)Nos.20/2024, 365/2024 & 389/2024
23
2025:KER:19068
DATED 17/08/2017
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SVC(5)
43700/2016 DATED 08/02/2021 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 351/2021/AGRI
DATED 12/04/2021 OF GOVT. OF KERALA
Annexure R2(a) TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORTS NO.S.V.C (5)
43700/16 DATED 14.12.2016 OF SPECIAL
VIGILANCE CELL, DIRECTORATE OF
AGRICULTURE
Annexure R2(b) TRUE COPY OF REPORT AS PER RULE 15 OF KCS
(CC&A) RULES, 1960
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 991/2021 ALONG
WITH ANNEXURES FILED BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31.5.2021
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON
BEHALF OF FIRST RESPONDENT DATED
12.9.2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON
BEHALF OF SECOND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES DATED 1.11.2021
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A. NO.
991/2021 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
24.8.2023